Author

By In Worship

Who needs Advent?

_MG_3487

What’s Advent?  Who needs it?  Isn’t it just time to get ready for Christmas?  We would do that anyway, even if there weren’t an Advent season.

Advent is the time to prepare for Christmas, but it’s more than that. It’s the time when we concentrate on Jesus’ coming return, when He will judge the world and establish justice and peace forevermore.  It’s a dreadful and a wonderful prospect.

“But who can endure the day of His coming?
And who can stand when He appears?
For He is like a refiner’s fire
And like launderers’ soap.”

(Mal. 3:2)

Dreadful for those outside His kingdom, who have not yet repented and submitted to His Kingship.  Wonderful for those inside, who daily face the long hard road marked by sin, pain, fear, oppression, sickness, trouble, and death.

Advent is for those who are acquainted with grief, because they will find it difficult to believe that these sorrows can come untrue.  Those who grieve know that evil is real, that death is here and holds power over us still, and Jesus’ return can seem like wishful thinking.  It is easy to lose heart.  It is hard to believe He will ever return.  It sounds like a fairy tale.  Advent is for these people, because in Advent we are told in no uncertain terms, over and over again, “Emmanuel shall come to thee, O Israel.”  We are told because we need to be told.  Advent is for those who desire His coming so much, they start to disbelieve it will ever happen.  To them, it is said: “Emmanuel shall come to thee.”

But is life not also a road paved with hope, blessings, comfort, and joy?  Yes, those too. Advent is for those who know joy and comfort, too.  It is for them, because Advent reminds us that however full and good life may seem now, it is not as it should be.  When we are happy and comforted, the world still groans.  The earth still needs Jesus’ return.  We still need Him to return.  “Emmanuel shall come to thee,” is a refrain that both reminds and remonstrates, as it tells us however full we may feel, we are not full as we should be, and we must not be as Israel who forgot God in her fullness.  Emmanuel shall come, and that means we must remember Him.  Advent is for those whose fullness may tempt them not to desire His coming, for it teaches us to desire it much.  To them, too, it is said: “Emmanuel shall come to thee.”

I need Advent.  You need Advent.  People next to you in the pew.  Or across your street.  We need to be told , “Emmanuel shall come.”  We need to hear it, we need to say it, we need to sing it, we need to pray it.  We need Advent because we need Jesus to come.  We need to be wakeful and watchful and pray.  We need to make ourselves ready.  We need to live the kind of lives that conform to His coming Kingdom of justice and peace.

We need to say, “Come, Lord Jesus,” and mean it.  That’s what Advent is for.<>продвижение ов в google

Read more

By In Books

Docteur Dans la Cuisine

Guest Post by Mark Nenadov

Introduction

Have you ever found a little, unassuming book, only to find that takes you by the feet, and shakes you up a bit?

About seven years ago, I found such a book in the University of Windsor library here in Canada. It was an English translation of The Humaness of John Calvin: The Reformer as a Husband, Father, Pastor & Friend by Richard Stauffer.

On the surface, there’s probably nothing in that little 100 or so page book that is, earth shattering. But, nonetheless, it blew me away at the time.

Stauffer does not resort to hagiography, but attempts to give a brief and accurate portrayal of John Calvin in various spheres as Husband, Father, Pastor, and Friend was really illuminating. Stauffer clearly shows Calvin in a way that contradicts the false image of him as a cold-hearted dictator. He shows a pastor who supports the very church leadership which overthrew him. He shows a father and husband who cares for his family through difficult circumstances, such as the plague. He shows a faithful friend, who seeks out friendships and nurtures them, pouring himself out for his friends.

Three Surprising Angles

There are, however, three other aspects of Calvin which aren’t really hinted at in the title.

1. Calvin as a Bachelor. In a letter to William Farel, the single John Calvin reveals his ideals of beauty, love, and femininity. He does have a bit of a “starry eyed” side, so much so that Melanchton teases him by saying he was “dreaming of getting married”. The single life was discouraging for him, and he even once asked whether he should “search [for a wife] any more”. And, yet, the noble bachelor had a serious view of marriage, even reversing the typical platitude about celibacy, commenting that getting a wife would be done in order to “dedicate myself more completely to the Lord”. As it turns out, at the age of 31, Calvin found himself an “upright and honest…even pretty” women in Idlette de Bure.

2. Calvin as a Matchmaker. Calvin desired good matches for his friends, and sought to take actions towards that.

3. Calvin as an Insulted Man. This one is less surprising, and is generally common knowledge to most Reformed people. However, there are some surprising details to this that Stauffer covers.

One Particular Line of “Insults”

I would like to elaborate on #3 a bit. It is incredible to see how far Calvin’s opponents went to bring his name and character through the mud. I seem to remember one attack claiming that Calvin had rats crawling in his garments, or something similar to that.

Since reading Stauffer’s book, I learned that one French Catholic writer, Louis Richeome, in a hit piece on the Huguenots, actually made the audacious claim that Calvin’s impudence “surpasses that of the Devil”.

And, yet, not all of Calvin’s most staunch opponents realized how their words could be taken two ways. Stauffer’s book provides a delightful example of this. One particularly flamboyant critic of Calvin, Jacques Desmay, who was the vicar-general of the diocese of Rouen, tried to condemn Calvin, but it sounds to “Kuyperian” ears more like a commendation:

“[John Calvin] is the author of a religion of the table, the stomach, the fat, the flesh, the kitchen”

“in [John Calvin], the whole reformation only tendeth to “establish the reign of wine, women and song”.

Conclusion

Although, I am sure John Calvin would not have felt that was a fair characterization of the Reformation, I can’t help but surmise that he must have taken a certain secret delight that this was really the best Jacques Desmay could come up with.

There is some measure of truth in it in this attack, especially when we consider these statements in light of Calvin’s writings about beauty and God’s gifts. He certainly felt that God gave things such as food and drink in a spirit of “superabundant liberality”.

Joel Beeke, in Living For God’s Glory: An Introduction to Calvinism, says it well:

“Typically, Calvin uses the complexio oppositorum when explaining the Christian’s relation to the world, presenting opposites to find a middle way between them. Thus, on the one hand, cross-bearing crucifies us to the world and the world to us. On the other hand, the devout Christian enjoys this present life, albeit with due restraint and moderation, for he is taught to use things in this world for the purpose that God intended for them. Calvin was no ascetic; he enjoyed good literature, good food, and the beauties of nature.”

Calvin’s detractors took the fact that Calvin promoted the enjoyment of these good gifts, and blew this a bit out of proportion.

I suppose sometimes our enemies even get us partially right. And sometimes insults go both ways. I suppose it wouldn’t be such a bad thing if we, in our day, had a few more “Docteurs Dans la Cuisine”, theologians with a hearty appreciation for things that fill the plate and the cup.  And if that causes detractors to think it is establishing a reign of “a religion of the kitchen”, so be it!

For more publications and updates on Mr. Nenadov, see GoodreadsBlog, TwitterLinkedinWebsite<>mobile rpg game1 продвижение ов

Read more

By In Theology, Worship

How To Avoid Death-By-Eucharist

by Marc Hays

glass of wineGrowing up in a Southern Baptist church, I became accustomed to eating from the Lord’s Table once a quarter. The words of institution were read from 1 Corinthians 11, and the organ droned “Have Thine Own Way,” until everyone had been served. While the organ hummed we examined ourselves to see whether or not we should have been partaking at all. Most of us sat with heads bowed and eyes closed. (I know because I often got tired of examining myself and looked around hoping someone was doing something interesting.) Afterwards we left the auditorium in silence, not talking or fellowshipping until we had made our way into the outer hall. It was very respectful, for which I am thankful, and very somber, for which I am not.

In college, I was a member of a Primitive Baptist church, which I considered a much better experience. There was no organ, which I considered an improvement – though its absence was based on bad exegesis. Replacing the organ was robust, congregational singing in four-part, shape-noted harmony. The service of the Lord’s Supper was always followed by a foot-washing and a congregational meal. Both of which were high points in the first two decades of my life.

Compared to the Southern Baptists, the Primitives had some things going in their favor, but the thrust of the Lord’s Supper service was still focused on internal, self-scrutinizing assessment, which resulted in the feeling that this crust of bread and thimble of wine could put you on your death bed. The Primitive Baptists are working very diligently to be a “New Testament church,” employing a positivist, regulative principle of worship a that incorporates what God has said from Acts all the way to Jude. Unfortunately, this leaves out all of that revelation where God described in detail how He wants to be worshiped.

Here’s the rub. Christians should be careful to hear and to heed the words of Paul in 1 Corinthians 11. He actually did say, “Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup.” (11:28) Next, Paul really did say, “For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself. This is why many of you are weak and ill, and some have died.” (11:29-30) This type of talk could push a rational person toward the Scottish church and the whole “once a year communion” practice. That would radically decrease ones chances of “death-by-Eucharist,” but is that what this is really about? Did Paul really intend to turn a meal with Jesus into a time of inner turmoil and fear?

I propose that a meal with Jesus should be a happy time. Happy. Happy. Happy. Why so happy when this is a time to remember that Jesus has died? Well, I maintain that this time should be happy because upon every remembrance of Jesus’ death, we remember that He is not still in His tomb. We remember that Jesus was delivered up for our trespasses and raised for our justification (Rom 4:25). Christ is no longer present on the cross. He is no longer present in the grave. He reigns.

Why so happy when this is supposed to be a time of self-examination? We have examined ourselves already; earlier in the same service actually. The whole body present in that room ascended the hill of the Lord, corporately confessed our sin and then heard the assurance proclaimed from God’s under-shepherd that we have been forgiven in Christ. We weighed ourselves in the scales of the law and found want; we confessed this lack of conformity to God’s Word, and He was faithful and just, just like He said He’d be, to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9); and we heard that our sins are forgiven in Christ proclaimed loudly and joyously by our pastor.

When self-examination is over, and at some point it is supposed to be over, it is time to feast. If the feast is your time of self-examination, then it may not be a feast with Jesus. He wants your head on his breast while you hoist your glass of wine; not your eyes on your belly button, while you wonder if you’ll make it out of the room alive.

Once, Nehemiah was interrogated by a king for being sad in his presence. Nehemiah knew better than to pull that kind of stunt, but he couldn’t help it. His heart was heavy because the place of his fathers’ graves was in ruins and the gates destroyed by fire. The king understood because Nehemiah had a good reason to be sad. Christian, your King is far more understanding than Artaxerxes could ever have been, but you have no reason to be sad. The gates are no longer in ruins. Jesus’ kingdom has come, is coming, and will come on earth as it is in heaven. What reason have you to be sad? Does your heart condemn you? God is greater than your heart, he knows everything. (1 John 3:20) Do you have sin to be confessed? Confess it. (1 John 1:9) Examine yourself, and then joyfully come. (1Cor 11:29)

Every week, my seven-year-old son, Seth, lifts his plastic, wine-filled thimble in my direction and waits for the toast. We toast and bless one another with a hearty “L’Chaim!” and then we drain it. We drink to life, because Jesus is life, and we are alive in Him. We drink to life because the grave has been conquered. We drink to life because the wages of sin have been paid, but not by us. We drink to life. We drink to Jesus.

Click on the book covers for resources for further study:

MEYERS LORDS SERVICEJORDAN LITURGY TRAP

<>услуги оптимизации а

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulative_principle_of_worship  (back)

Read more

By In Scribblings

Uri Brito: C.S.Lewis on being in love

I will be presiding over another wedding tomorrow night, and in my studies came across this quote from C.S. Lewis on being in love:

Being in love is a good thing, but it is not the best thing. There are many things below it, but there are also things above it. You cannot make it the basis of a whole life. It is a noble feeling, but it is still a feeling. Now no feeling can be relied on to last in its full intensity, or even to last at all. Knowledge can last, principles can last, habits can last but feelings come and go. And in fact, whatever people say, the state called ‘being in love’ usually does not last. If the old fairy-tale ending ‘They lived happily ever after’ is taken to mean ‘They felt for the next fifty years exactly as they felt the day before they were married,’ then it says what probably never was nor ever would be true, and would be highly undesirable if it were. Who could bear to live in that excitement for even five years? What would become of your work, your appetite, your sleep, your friendships? But, of course, ceasing to be ‘in love’ need not mean ceasing to love. Love in this second sense — love as distinct from ‘being in love’ — is not merely a feeling. It is a deep unity, maintained by the will and deliberately strengthened by habit; reinforced by (in Christian marriages) the grace which both partners ask, and receive, from God. They can have this love for each other even at those moments when they do not like each other; as you love yourself even when you do not like yourself. They can retain this love even when each would easily, if they allowed themselves, be ‘in love’ with someone else. ‘Being in love’ first moved them to promise fidelity: this quieter love enables them to keep the promise. it is on this love that the engine of marriage is run: being in love was the explosion that started it.”

<>game angry racersкак посмотреть индексацию а

Read more

By In Scribblings

Marc Hays: Responsible Wife and Mother Gets the Boot

This article is two days old, so things may have changed, but if the facts are as they are presented, this deserves public outcry and denunciation of those officials overseeing this debacle. Any new news you may have would be appreciated. Please comment below.

Albanian mom with three American kids makes desperate bid to stay in the U.S. after she’s given 24 HOURS to leave the country

Albanian Wife and Mother

<>раскрутка а предложение

Read more

By In Theology

Hospitality (Hebrews 13:3 and Genesis 18)

Guest Post by Mark Nenadov

By the oaks of Mamre

Abraham and Sarah received some company

He promised a piece of bread

they got a marvelous feast instead

they had some important thing to proclaim

Abraham would have a child to bear his name.

 

Abraham set before them a noble plate,

under the tree–there they ate

and they revealed the coming of a heir

in a line which would yield

the incarnate Son of God lovely and fair

whose kingdom is a “sell-all-and-buy-this field”

and who is precious as no pearl can compare.

 

But let’s pull out another lesson now

don’t get weighed down by selfish cares

invite some friends and make some chow

by hard work you can pull it off somehow

for in hospitality God often visits His people unawares.

For more publications and updates on Mr. Nenadov, see GoodreadsBlog, TwitterLinkedinWebsite<>rpg mobile online gamesтиц это

Read more

By In Culture, Family and Children

Raising Life-long Learners and Leaders

In his book Beauty for Truth’s Sake, Stratford Caldecott states that it is,

“no wonder students come to a college education expecting nothing more than a set of paper qualifications that will enable them to earn a decent salary.  The idea that they might be there to grow as human beings, to be inducted into an ancient culture, to become somehow more than they are already, is alien to them.  They expect instant answers, but they have no deep questions.  The great questions have not yet been woken in them.  The process of education requires us to become open, receptive, curious, and humble in the face of what we do not know.  The world is a fabric woven of mysteries, and a mystery is a provocation to our humanity that cannot be dissolved by googling a few more bits of information.”

Mr. Caldecott has aptly described a generation who has been taught that they are nothing more than highly-developed mammals, and how highly-developed is still up for grabs. We have 90% less fur and 99% less purpose than our monkey’s uncle. As long as a young man makes enough to pay for his Playstation and Netflix, he’s good to go. This postmodern generation is enslaved to their evolutionary apathy. This apathy reminded Francis Schaeffer of Ancient Rome. In his book How Should We Then Live he said,

“As the Roman economy slumped lower and lower, burdened with aggravated inflation and a costly government, authoritarianism increased to counter the apathy… …because of the general apathy and its results, and because of oppressive control, few thought the civilization worth saving.  Rome did not fall because of external forces such as the invasion of the barbarians.  Rome had no sufficient inward base; the barbarians only completed the breakdown—and Rome gradually became a ruin.”

America is reaping what Jean Jacques Rousseau, John Dewey and Horace Mann have sown. America is reaping what America has sown. We cannot turn back the clock; so we must decide how we are going to respond, and where we can go from here. The opposite of apathy is passion. The opposite of slavery is freedom, and the opposite of modern, socialist education is classical, Christian education.

With the classical tools of learning, constructed upon the solid foundation of God’s Word, students will not only excel at whatever their hand finds to do, but they will be able to become leaders in their particular field of interest. So, we are not just raising life-long learners, but we are also raising life-long leaders. Are we training our children to be the next generation of leaders in Christendom, or are we assuming that someone else will take care of that?  If Christians aren’t doing it, then who is? Is the apathy in our culture limited to the twenty-somethings in their Star Wars pajamas, living with their moms, playing Wii all day, or does it extend further than that?

Are we passionate for the Kingdom? Are we avoiding government schools because we have a vision for our children’s future in Christ’s Kingdom or merely to avoid drug use, school violence, and free condoms?  Our vision for child-rearing must extend beyond the things we’re trying to avoid and manifest itself in all the things that we are working to accomplish, namely the coming of Christ’s Kingdom on earth as it is in heaven. The classical model is not the only way to raise up your little olive shoots in the fear and admonition of the Lord, but it is a premiere tool to accomplish the rearing of passionate, Christian, life-long learners and leaders.

(This was short, I know. Here are some resources to flesh out the bald assertions I’ve just made.)

Click here or on the book cover to link to this title on Amazon.

Case for CCE

Click here to link to an outstanding lecture by George Grant on Classical Christian Education. It’s available free of charge at wordmp3.com

image.ashx

<>mobi gamespr программа пример

Read more

By In Culture, Family and Children

When Are You Ever Going To Grow Up?

by Marc Hays

“When I became a man, I put away childish things…”

Norman-Rockwell-Taller_thumb2For decades, American culture has been pushing the threshold between childhood and adulthood further and further from birth. This is being done in the name of science, which supposedly is just analyzing the data and then reporting the facts. A myriad of professions, from psychiatrists to psychologists to neurologists to anthropologists, are making the claim that the period of “adolescence” continues to lengthen. As many of these professions are built on evolutionary assumptions, the data is often treated as though this is simply the way things are. Perhaps it is simply the next stage of human evolution; the next stage of progress being a state in which the human being no longer wants to progress.

In September of this year, the BBC reported, “New guidance for psychologists will acknowledge that adolescence now effectively runs up until the age of 25 for the purposes of treating young people.” This shift in the direction for the psychiatric care of young people is being pushed by neurologists that are claiming that the prefrontal cortex of the brain is still developing until around age 25. Therefore, information is being processed differently than in the brains of adults, which leads to all of the stereotypical woes of the teenage years.

This distinction between “children” and “adults” is a real one, and not just some arbitrary legal age. This distinction goes far beyond the ability to reproduce their species; far beyond their overall physical shape and/or muscle tone; far beyond the final state of their prefrontal cortex. Those characteristics are certainly an objective reality, but the Apostle Paul doesn’t say, “When I became a man, I got stronger, taller, and had to shave my whiskers.”  He said that he “put away childish things”, or in the ESV, “I gave up childish ways.” He’s implying that a child behaves like a child, and an adult behaves like an adult. The problem in our culture is not that people are staying small and beardless. It is that they grow up physically but refuse to take the responsibility that is supposed to accompany that growth.

The term “adolescence” comes from the Latin word “adolescere” which means “to grow up.” In most cultures that recognize this stage of human development, it begins with the onset of puberty and the physical changes that reshape little people into bigger people. When adolescence ends is somewhat arbitrary, and this “commencement” is often attended by culturally relative rites and rituals. America’s famous age has long stood at 18-years-old. This makes sense as this age is attended by high school graduation and the legal right to enter into a contract, signifying the end of the legal guardianship of parents. Seems simple enough, right? Child…17. Adult…18.

If so, then why are leading psychiatric associations publishing that adolescence should be extended to age 25? Why? Perhaps it’s because they know that a sustained “identity crisis,” which supposedly comes with adolescence, is good for their industry. After all, they’re all about fixing crises, right? Why extend the age of adolescence? Maybe it’s because longer childhood provides more of something else besides sin on which to blame America’s interminable immaturity.

As Christians, when we finish critiquing the psychiatric community’s self-fulfilling prophecies, are we prepared to do anything about it? What about our kids? Are we raising them to grow up? Do we have a plan to help them put away childish things and move from godly children to godly adults? Paul’s list includes speaking like a child, thinking like a child, and reasoning like a child. We must teach them and, more importantly, show them what it means to speak, think, and reason as an adult.

A wise man once instructed me that our goal as parents should not be to raise godly children, but to raise godly adults. (I won’t tell you his name, but his initials are RCJR.) This epigram casts our eyes toward the horizon, lest we become too easily satisfied in present successes or too easily discouraged by the failures. The litmus test for adulthood cannot be a magical age when the prefrontal cortex stops growing, and we should not be surprised when, a few years from now, new scientific data attempts to explain why adolescence is being extended to 40-years-old. The standard for judging godliness, in both children and adults, has been, and always will be, the Word of God—fully revealed in the Son of Man, Jesus Christ.<>online gameпопулярность а проверить

Read more

By In Books

And the Winner is…

Mark Nenadov. Over 80 participants entered to win a copy of Robert Capon’s classic The Supper of the Lamb. Thanks to everyone for participating.

Congratulations, Mark! Stay tuned for new offers!

Read more

By In Culture

C. S. Lewis & Winnie the Pooh

transcribed by Marc Hays

The following quote is taken from the lecture, “Shelf Life: Reading, Thinking and Resisting the Tyranny of the Urgent,” by Dr. George Grant, who granted permission for such a lengthy quote:

This afternoon, my talk is going to be, essentially, an exposition of a passage. I’ll read the passage first, and then, we’ll launch into the exposition therein.

pooh_99_“Well, I’ve got an idea,” said Rabbit, “and here it is. Look, we take Tigger for a long explore. Somewhere he’s never been. And then, we lose him there. And the next morning, we find him again. And mark my words, he’ll be a different Tigger altogether.”

“Why?” said Pooh.

“Because, he’ll be a humble Tigger; because he’ll be a sad Tigger; a melancholy Tigger; a small and sorry Tigger; and an ‘oh, Rabbit, I’m so glad to see you’ Tigger. That’s why.”

It’s a wonderful scene, isn’t it? Pooh and Rabbit talking about Tigger, who is always so… …pompous. Always so full of ideas.

You know, Pooh doesn’t have a brain, as he constantly reminds himself and everyone else. And Rabbit, well, he’s a bright one, but he’s small and he knows he’s small and he can’t dominate the world. Tigger, he’s even more pompous than Rabbit, because he knows so much. He’s so clever. He’s like an academic. So, Rabbit and Pooh come together to imagine a way to make Tigger more bearable. And they hatch this scheme that will somehow bring Tigger to a place of repentance.

J.R.R. Tolkien once said, “The essence of education is repentance. It is recognizing that we don’t know what we ought to know. We don’t do what we aspire to do. We make up a thousand excuses as to why it is that we’re not all that we were called to be.”

…And we could become overwhelmed with all that we’ve got to know and all that we’ve got to do, or we could be like that wonderful community just around the corner where Pooh lives where we provoke one another on toward repentance.

We all kind of need a Pooh and a Rabbit in our lives to take us on a long explore. Where we can then get lost, and then found again. So that we wake up the next day a much more humble Tigger; a much more receptive Tigger; a much more ‘oh, I’m so glad to see you Rabbit,’ Tigger.

That’s what reading does for us. We look at all of the tasks that we’ve got and we realize immediately that we are going to need to rearrange our lives. Because we have been robbed culturally; because we have been robbed spiritually; because we have been deficient ourselves, and we have contributed to own intellectual and spiritual indolence; we know that the great call of God on us is not just to stack the books up and to have all sorts of good intentions. It really is to repent. And there is nothing greater in all the world to provoke us to repent than to read books. Books that stretch us; books that change us; books that open to us new horizons; books that  change the way we look at the world; books that change the way we talk;  books that change the way we set the table; books that change the way we have relationships.

Emily Dickinson, the great American folk poet said,

“There is no Frigate like a Book To take us Lands away,
Nor any Coursers like a Page Of prancing Poetry –
This Traverse may the poorest take Without oppress of Toll –
How frugal is the Chariot That bears a Human soul.”

Mark Twain, reinforcing that notion, said, “The man who does not read good books has no advantage over the man who can’t read them.”

I’m convinced that to a large degree, what many of you are wrestling with as you think through your already crowded day-timers; as you think through all of your past, bashed, best intentions, is that God is beckoning you to join with me in repenting.

In this session, what I’d like to do is to suggest a practical way for us to undertake this humble task of repenting: changing our lives, realizing that we need to be hungry to learn. That we need to find teachers to speak into our lives, who may not live in our neighborhoods, but who can be brought to our school, into our communities, into our homes by way of that marvel called a book.

Long before the bane of television invaded our every waking moment, C. S. Lewis commented that while most people in modern industrial cultures are at least marginally able to read, they just don’t. In his wise and wonderful book, An Experiment in Criticism, he wrote,

“The majority, though they are sometimes frequent readers, do not set much store by reading. They turn to it as a last resource. They abandon it with alacrity as soon as any alternative pastime turns up. It is kept for railway journeys, illnesses, odd moments of enforced solitude, or for the process called ‘reading oneself to sleep.’ They sometimes combine it with desultory conversation; often, while listening to the radio. But literary people are always looking for leisure and silence in which to read and do so with their whole attention. When they are denied such attentive and undisturbed reading for a few days they feel impoverished.”

He goes further, admitting that there is a profound puzzlement on the part of the mass of the citizenry over the taste and habits of the literate. He says, “It is pretty clear that the majority, if they spoke without passion, and were fully articulate, would not accuse us of liking the wrong books, but about making such a fuss about any books at all.

We treat, as a main ingredient in our well-being, something which to them is marginal. Hence to say, simply, that they like one thing and we another is to leave out nearly the whole of the facts. He goes on to argue that all of this is not to imply any hint of moral turpitude on the part of modern Bohemianism; rather, it is to recognize the simple reality of the gaping chasm that exists between those who read and those who don’t; between the popular “many” and the peculiar “few.” It is to recognize that education requires the latter while maintaining steadfast incompatibility with the former.

He concludes the whole affair by saying, “true readers may never carry their knowledge with “hubris.” You know what ‘hubris'” is. It’s like pride, on sterroids. The truly well-read will never carry their education with hubris, because every time you turn a page, you discover something that you did not know. Thus, he says, it brings you back to that theme of education as repentance.

The preceding quote is taken from the lecture, “Shelf Life: Reading, Thinking and Resisting the Tyranny of the Urgent,” by Dr. George Grant. You can buy an mp3 download of the lecture here.

<>заказать рекламу

Read more